Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 9 Hansard (3 September) . . Page.. 2848 ..

Mr Moore: I asked the same question about poker machines. You were not so interested in it then. Come on, Gary!

MR HUMPHRIES: That is not true, Mr Speaker. The Government has always indicated that it is prepared to protect those national competition payments. The fact of the matter is that this is an obligation which has been incurred by successive governments. Whether we like it or not, we do have those obligations, in writing, to other jurisdictions. It is a mutual obligation to other jurisdictions in Australia. I did not sit down and negotiate the principles. I am not familiar with the details of the contract that all Australian jurisdictions entered into. But, as a Minister in this Government, I accept that I have inherited an obligation, I think, from the previous Government. Did they sign the national competition policy, or was it us?

Mrs Carnell: They signed it.

MR HUMPHRIES: Yes, the Labor Party signed this agreement originally, before the last election. We accept our obligations under that, and therefore we will move to protect payments due to the Territory on that score. I am not at this point in time expressing a view one way or the other as to whether the move that Ms Horodny is putting before the Assembly today, as amended by Mr Corbell, is or is not worth $6.7m. Perhaps it is. Perhaps people in this place would argue that striking a blow for a better life for chickens is worth $6.7m. But I do not think we should be taking this decision today on the principle simply that we are not really sure of what the cost to us all will be, so we will take a punt and we will vote for this today and we will see what comes out the other end. I think it is an extremely unwise way to proceed.

MR MOORE (4.15): It is a great debating tactic to say, "I have had advice. Perhaps it will come in writing. It is about this, really. It says that national competition policy might cost us over $6m". I do not think it carries any weight, Mr Humphries. Considering that it was quite clear before lunch that this issue had the general support of members, if you had brought in that advice and distributed it around lunchtime or offered us a briefing, I certainly would have been more receptive to such advice. It seems to me, when I read this amendment by Mr Corbell, that what we have is effectively a recognition of the importance of the Mutual Recognition Act as part of competition policy. It is saying, "We will not proceed with this until we get agreement from the other States". How can that offend competition policy? We are not going to present it until we have the agreement. I simply do not accept that part of the argument.

Of course, such advice always depends on what question was asked. We do not know what question was asked. Was the question: Does Ms Horodny's legislation offend the Mutual Recognition Act? Does it offend competition policy? Mr Corbell clearly believed that there was some risk as far as that is concerned, which is why he moved the very sensible amendment in order to deal with that issue. The issue, as I have always said to Ms Horodny, was the most difficult of all the issues that we were dealing with. I am sure that, for any opinion that we get that way, we can get an opinion the other way. It seems to me, Mr Speaker, that the argument put by Mr Humphries is not an adequate one. I will certainly be supporting the amendment.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .